FTR Now
Arbitrator Dismisses Faculty Grievance over Bill 124 Wage Dispute: No Arbitral Jurisdiction Without Reopener Provision in Collective Agreement
Date: April 30, 2025
In a recent labour arbitration decision, Arbitrator William Kaplan dismissed a grievance filed against Wilfrid Laurier University (University) by the Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association (the Association) on behalf of its Contract Teaching Faculty (CTF) bargaining unit. This decision provides important guidance on the limits of an arbitrator’s jurisdiction in addressing legislative constraints on collective bargaining.
Background
The dispute arose between the University and the Association’s CTF bargaining unit, which represents approximately 1,000 part-time contract academic staff and part-time librarians. On March 21, 2024, the Association filed a grievance in which it alleged that the University had refused to reopen compensation negotiations that were “illegally bargained” under Bill 124, the Protecting a Sustainable Future for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124) for their 2019-2022 and 2022-2025 collective agreements.
The Bill 124 Context
Bill 124, which limited compensation increases to 1% in each year of a three-year moderation period, was struck down as unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court on November 29, 2022 – a decision later confirmed by the Court of Appeal and followed by the bill’s repeal in February 2023 (see our FTR Now on Bill 124).
The case proceeded to a hearing held via Zoom on March 26, 2025 where the CTF requested nullification of both the current and previous collective agreements and sought an order directing the parties to redo their negotiations subject to provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
The Association’s Position
The Association argued that the employment of CTF members was precarious, with inadequate compensation despite their considerable workload and contributions to the University. They contended that Bill 124 prevented free collective bargaining, and that its anti-avoidance provisions continued to affect the 2022-2025 agreement.
The Association maintained that the Charter breach created by Bill 124 necessitated a remedy, and that an arbitrator under the CTF collective agreement had jurisdiction to nullify the agreements and order the parties back to bargaining. They further argued that the University had received a “windfall” under Bill 124 and should be required to engage in new negotiations.
The Association maintained that setting the clock back to create conditions for unfettered collective bargaining was the only way to achieve justice.
The University’s Position
The University countered that a rights arbitrator derives jurisdiction solely from the collective agreement. Since the Association had not negotiated a reopener provision for the CTF agreements, though it had for the FTF, there was no contractual provision that had been breached.
The University emphasized that there was no freestanding obligation to reopen negotiations and no evidence that it had failed to recognize the Association or negotiated in bad faith.
The University further contended that the appropriate forum for addressing alleged bargaining in bad faith is the Ontario Labour Relations Board, not arbitration.
The Arbitrator’s Analysis
In his analysis, Arbitrator Kaplan focused on the fundamental question of whether there was an actual breach of the collective agreement that would confer arbitral jurisdiction. In so doing, Arbitrator Kaplan concluded that while Bill 124 had been struck down as unconstitutional, there was no provision in either CTF collective agreement that had been breached by the University’s refusal to reopen negotiations. He emphasized that a rights arbitrator’s jurisdiction is derived from and limited to the collective agreement and cannot be used to create new obligations that were not negotiated by the parties.
Key Findings
Arbitrator Kaplan concluded that while Bill 124 had been struck down as unconstitutional, the remedy for that Charter breach should be sought in the courts, not through grievance arbitration. He rejected the Association’s argument that a prospective remedy was inadequate because many affected part-time workers had moved on, noting the inconsistency in the Association’s position that it was willing to potentially lead current employees into a strike over benefits for individuals no longer in the workplace.
Moreover, Arbitrator Kaplan confirmed that allegations of bargaining in bad faith fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, not a grievance arbitrator.
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the principle that a rights arbitrator’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to interpreting and applying the existing terms of a collective agreement. The case establishes that even when legislation affecting collective bargaining is later found unconstitutional, an arbitrator cannot impose remedies that were not negotiated by the parties.
Wilfrid Laurier University was successfully represented by Hicks Morley’s Amanda E. Lawrence-Patel.
